Does Obama really want a bipartisan solution?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 10:57 p.m.

    Mortar shells?

    Bush said Nuclear weapons.

    Today is 2013.

    Your claim is proven wrong. Again.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 31, 2013 8:07 a.m.

    To "Pagan" lets see what dear Leader has to say about comprimise. From the Huffington Post we see the headline "Obama Fiscal Cliff Speech: I 'Won't Compromise' On Taxes ".

    How about "Reid Won’t Allow Vote on Obama’s Fiscal Cliff Plan" at national review.

    Also, FYI, WMDs were found. In later reports we saw "WikiLeaks Show WMD Hunt Continued in Iraq – With Surprising Results" Wired October 23, 2010 They detail how WMDs were found.

    "Hundreds of WMDs discovered in Iraq" WorldNetDaily June 21, 2006

    "Iraq mortar shells contain blister agent" USA Today January 11, 2004 How could they have found mortar shells with blister agents if Sadam didn't have any WMDs?

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2013 11:41 p.m.

    Questioning if Obama wants bipartisan support ignores the attempts President Obama has made to compromise.

    What has been the response from the GOP?

    'The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.' - Republican Senate minority leader, Mitch McConnell. Oct. 23, 2010

    It is hypocritical to ask why Obama is not looking for bipartisan support...

    When the Republican Senate has made public declarations of Obstruction...

    and the Republican House has only passed 3% of any legislation. The least American of legislation passed, in American history.

    Obama agreed to cuts in Social security.

    The Republican party, only ever wants more compromise, for them.


    Today is 2013.

    Zero WMD's ever found in Iraq. The claim again was:

    "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.' - George W. Bush - Ohio Speech


  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 30, 2013 5:03 p.m.


    WHY did Bush send troops in when UN Weapons Inspectors had not completed their inspections, were finding nothing, and wanted more time?

    "In fact, Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources he was given as a source of this information had indeed been flagged by the Defense Intelligence Agency as a liar, a fabricator," says David Kay, who served as the CIA's chief weapons inspector in Iraq after the fall of Saddam. That source, an Iraqi defector who had never been debriefed by the CIA, was known within the intelligence community as "Curveball."

    The Duelfer report found what was going on in Iraq's govt preceding the Iraq War:

    The NMD director met with Republican Guard military leaders on 25 January 2003 and advised them they were to sign documents saying that there was no WMD in their units, according to a former Iraqi senior officer. Husam Amin told them that the government would hold them responsible if UNMOVIC found any WMD in their units or areas, or if there was anything that cast doubt on Iraq's cooperation with UNMOVIC. Commanders established committees to ensure their units retained no evidence of old WMD.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 30, 2013 2:12 p.m.

    Rexburg, ID

    Who voted for this guy?

    1:06 p.m. Jan. 30, 2013



    65,899,660 Americans
    51.1% of the voters
    332 or 62% of the Electoral College

    "He has no prior executive experience..."

    Ya- I mean c'mon, being President of the United States? - The ONLY member of the Executive Branch in our Constitutional Government for 4 years doesn't mean he has experience...

    Locke - get a clue.
    This is WHY you lost, again.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 30, 2013 2:05 p.m.

    Invisible Hand

    How else should he deal with an avowed enemy who uses every trick in the book to block, denigrate, and otherwise prevent any of his policies in the political, economic and even personal arena?

    How should he deal with people who will shut down businesses, layoff workers, withhold investments and then put the blame on him? And when confronted would say that his polices made them uncertain that they would make a profit.

    How should he deal with those who would gut the American government for financial gain?

    How should he deal with those who killed 5000 American soldiers and untold numbers of their families on the home front? Just to eliminate a business competitor.

    The republicans have shown by their actions that they are anti-people, anti-workers and anti-American.

  • Locke Rexburg, ID
    Jan. 30, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    When anyone disagrees with Pres. Obama, he says they are "politicizing" the issue.

    When anyone agrees with Pres. Obama, he says they are "doing the right thing."

    He will not compromise -- never has yet. He has a predefined agenda based purely on an academic ideology. He has no prior executive experience, and it shows in his unwillingness (or inability?) to negotiate or compromise -- the "meetings" he has had with Congress, business leaders, and special interest groups, were purely cosmetic. He just bulls ahead with his agenda, painting the opposition as selfish or unreasonable.

    Who voted for this guy?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 30, 2013 12:52 p.m.

    I don't want a bipartisan solution. I want the correct solution that has no to very few unintended consequences.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 30, 2013 12:46 p.m.

    we won?
    so did the lamanites in about 365 AD. So did the Japanese for a while on Corrigador (sp??)

    SHOW ME what bush fabricated. SHOW me how he manipulated the intel so that EVERYONE, including the other nations in the region thought Saddam had WMD. But how could he, since according to you and the left he was too stupid to be pres. but if someone that stupid can so easily fool so many dems, what does that say about their intelligence? you throw out this hatred often. What specifically did bush make up?

    BO wants NOTHING bi-partisan. since he was re-elected, he's now not only the annointed one, but god incarnate. If the repubs want to come along, they are welcome. BUT THEY GOTTA RIDE IN THE BACK OF THE BUS!

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 30, 2013 12:23 p.m.

    No more than Abraham Lincoln wanted a bi-partisan solution for approval for the 13th Ammendment.

    He got just enough votes to the thing passed.

    BTW -- Bush and Cheney lied and decieved like Satan himself to get their so-called bi-partisan solutions to invade the Middle East approved. Is that what you are suggesting Obama should do?

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Jan. 30, 2013 10:43 a.m.

    So Republicans are principled, and the President is intransigent? Also, uh, we won.

  • Invisible Hand Provo, UT
    Jan. 30, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    @UltraBob: Thank you for demonstrating the problem. Both sides need to recognize that their political opponents aren't trying to wreck the country. They aren't horrible people. We can have different ideas on how to improve the country without being complete idiots or diabolical schemers. Surely we can agree on some things, particularly immigration reform. It looks like the Republicans are willing to ignore the strident right wing on this one, the question is will Obama put aside his partisan politics long enough to get a deal?

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 30, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    “Does Obama really want a bipartisan solution?”

    NO. If he want to serve the American people. Promote the general welfare and resume the progress toward a greater civilization of man.

    NO. If he wants working people to share in the bounty of the American nation.

    NO. If he wants America to be a leader of good in the world.

    YES. If he wants America to return to the world of yesteryear where a tiny few owns everything and people are treated like cattle.

    YES. If he wants America to be a jungle.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Jan. 30, 2013 8:14 a.m.

    Obama has said change comes from outside Washington. I think that is what he is speaking to. I agree. Legislators aren't going to compromise and work together until/unless they feel huge pressure to do so. Right now we have a very active and vocal minority that extreme right-winged legislators are listening to. They haven't noticed the Republicans lost the last election. They are unaware that Democrats got more votes in the House, Senate and Presidential races--that only gerrymandering saved their seats. They continue to listen to the sources that told them Romney had it in the bag. Republican's only take away from the election is that we need more brown votes, and we need to tweak our messaging.

    Congress has a low approval rating--especially the Republicans in Congress. Republicans were very outfront with their main goal--to deny Obama a 2nd term. Didn't work out so well did it?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 30, 2013 6:01 a.m.

    From the title of the article ‘Does Obama really want a bipartisan solution?’

    Couldn't the same be asked in reverse?

    Does the GOP really want a bipartisan solution?

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 30, 2013 5:12 a.m.

    Obama also mentions that compromise means neither side is completely happy with the deal. And anyone who honestly looks at what is going on in Washington knows that Democrats have been willing to compromise where Republicans have not.

    If you are going to slam on Obama for a "my way or the highway" position, you need to at least be willing to admit that Republicans have the same attitude.

    And for the record - just as Republicans have ideals and think their positions are the best, so do Democrats. Compromise truly does mean both sides have to give a little (which, if you read the entirety of Obama's interview, is his actual position). Most Republicans have proven unwilling to give any ground and those few who do get torn apart in the media - just look at the reactions to the fiscal cliff deal and debt ceiling discussions. Look at the reactions to bi-partisan immigration reform....